Re: slow IMAP connection
Andrew Laurence <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.mail.imap.uw.c-client |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Mar 16, 2010, at 3:39 PM, Jim O'Leary wrote: > I'll second everything that Bob said plus the BIG advantage > of improved backup performance. Now our incremental backups > actually buy us something. No more "incremental is almost same > as full because each of those huge mbox/mbx inboxes got one new > message" syndrome. > > It's also kinda fun to talk to the Exchange admins and watch them > cringe when I talk about our users who have 5GB inboxes with > 30K messages in them. ;) > > I'll third everything. The mix format dug us out of an approaching performance catastrophe. Three cheers to Mark for developing mix in the nick of time to save our necks! ...and a fourth here. mix was a HUGE boon for us. We were using MBOX previously, and all the performance metrics we were tracking -- disk i/o, storage CPU consumption, etc -- dropped by 90% after converting to mix. That is not a typo: 90% REDUCTION in performance-related metrics. -- Andrew Laurence Office of Information Technology [email protected] University of California, Irvine _______________________________________________ Imap-uw mailing list [email protected] http://mailman2.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-uw